03 July 2025 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Drugs >> Criminal Law  

A recent petition seeking to cancel the bail granted to a respondent in a Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case has been dismissed. The Delhi High Court upheld the Additional Sessions Judge's decision to grant bail, citing the respondent's prolonged incarceration and significant procedural irregularities by the prosecution.

The case of State (Govt. Of NCT) Of Delhi v/s Amit originated from a 2019 FIR where the respondent and another individual were apprehended with two kilograms of heroin. The prosecution argued that the trial court erred in granting bail due to alleged non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, relying on a Supreme Court judgment (NCB v. Kashif) that stated such non-compliance alone does not vitiate the trial or warrant bail. They also emphasized the concept of "conscious possession" of contraband and the intact seal on the seized material, ensuring evidentiary sanctity.

However, the respondent's counsel countered, asserting that the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion. Key to their argument were the material procedural irregularities, specifically the untimely production of seized contraband samples before the Magistrate and an inordinate 1.5-year delay in sending them to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). This delay, it was argued, adversely impacted the chain of custody and the presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, aligning with the Supreme Court's ruling in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha.

Furthermore, the respondent had already been incarcerated for four years and nine months. Drawing parallels with Rabi Prakash and Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), where the Supreme Court held that prolonged incarceration (over three and a half years) could override the statutory embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the defense contended that continued detention would violate the respondent's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was also noted that the respondent had not misused the granted liberty or violated bail conditions.

The Court, considering the principles governing bail cancellation—which requires "very cogent and overwhelming circumstances"—found no reason to interfere with the lower court's decision. It highlighted that the samples drawn during the Section 52A proceedings were not sent to the FSL, meaning the primary evidence was not forensically analyzed. The judgment in Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. was referenced, underscoring that bail cancellation necessitates supervening circumstances, not a mechanical approach.

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the Sessions Judge judiciously exercised discretion by considering the prolonged incarceration and the likelihood of trial delay. The court found no perversity in the order, no reliance on irrelevant considerations, and no overlooked material facts. The petition for bail cancellation was therefore dismissed.

  Section 439., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

  Section 482., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973